Re: New package algol68toc: terms of the copyright.
Chris wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 09:44:17AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
>>
>>> INAL, so someone feel free to call me wrong. Comments inline.
>>
>> I'll call me wrong:
>>
>> 09:31 < Ganneff> svuorela: name the/a organisation, not your name. "org:
>> freedom fighters, inc". done. :)
>>
>> 09:31 < Ganneff> it doesnt want YOUR name, it wants A name for changes.
>> i dont see a problem in that. just make it consistent
>>
>> Comments retracted.
>
>I'd not be so quick to retract those comments! I agree it fails the
>dissident test. One is not able to contribute anonymously. You must
>identify the organization you are a part of (and what is an
>"organization," anyway?). And what do you do if you're not part of an
>organization? Are you required to identify yourself?
>
>If one must identify themselves a part of "freedom fighters, inc."
>they open themselves to their changes being traced back to them along
>with a flag on them saying, "I'm a freedom fighter." If they are not
>part of an organization, but other "freedom fighter" organizations
>are a part of the project, they become tied to those (perhaps, in the
>eyes of the government) through their explicit association with the
>project.
>
>I think this clause in the license absolutely fails the dissident test
>because there is no way for someone to contribute anonymously, and, on
>the face of it, no way to contribute without being a member of an
>organization, a term the license fails to define.
Please point to the DFSG section that mentions the "dissident test".
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
"We're the technical experts. We were hired so that management could
ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs." -- Mike Andrews
Reply to: